Alaska Public Media © 2025. All rights reserved.
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Alaska Supreme Court rules Anchorage’s ‘excessive police calls’ ordinance is legal

Alaska Supreme Court Justice Jude Pate, right, asks a question during oral arguments in a case concerning correspondence education allotments, on June 27, 2024, in the Boney Courthouse in Anchorage.
Andrew Kitchenman
/
Alaska Beacon
Alaska Supreme Court Justice Jude Pate, right, asks a question during oral arguments in a case concerning correspondence education allotments, on June 27, 2024, in the Boney Courthouse in Anchorage.

The Municipality of Anchorage may fine homeowners whose property becomes a public and police nuisance, the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled.

In an order published last week, the court’s five members ruled in favor of the municipality in a lawsuit brought by a woman whose property on Dewberry Street was the cause of more than 100 calls to police in 2018.

According to court documents, “the Anchorage Police Department (APD) responded to over one hundred calls involving complaints of drug activity, trash dumping, theft, gunshots, and suspicious activity in and around the property.”

In one case, police responded to a murder in front of the property.

Altogether, the municipality said, APD responded to 119 calls in one year.

Under municipal code, the city can fine the owner of a property and the tenant who lives there $500 “per excessive police response to the dwelling unit.”

Excessive is defined as “each police response in excess of eight to a dwelling unit in a calendar year.”

Roseanne Leydon was the listed owner of the Dewberry Street home, and Anchorage ultimately fined her for dozens of police calls that it deemed excessive.

Leydon, representing herself, appealed those fines to the municipality, where a hearing officer found that she was liable for 13 excessive police calls and their associated fines.

While that was less than the 29 calls that the municipality had sought, Leydon appealed again, to Anchorage Superior Court, which upheld the hearing officer’s findings.

Leydon appealed again to the Supreme Court, where she argued that the municipality’s ordinance was vague and lacked due process. She also said that she had not been properly notified of violations.

In a unanimous opinion, the court rejected Leydon’s arguments and upheld the lower court’s decision.

Alaska Beacon is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alaska Beacon maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Andrew Kitchenman for questions: info@alaskabeacon.com. Follow Alaska Beacon on Facebook and X.